Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 05 June 1913
• Citation: 62 So. 802,183 Ala. 411
• Parties: SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO. v. WILSON et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

62 So. 802

183 Ala. 411

SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO. v. WILSON et al.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 5, 1913

Appeal from Circuit Court, Franklin County; C.P. Almon, Judge.

Action by Kate Wilson and another against the Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The complaint alleges in effect that plaintiffs were in possession of and owned certain lands which are described and that at the time of the injuries complained of the defendant owned and controlled or had possession of certain lands near to plaintiff's land but above plaintiff's land, which were lower and subservient, and that prior to the injuries complained of defendant had constructed a large and high dam across a stream running through the lands of both plaintiff and defendant, and that said dam had collected a large body of water which was held by said dam until on or about April, when said dam broke, and the water flowed upon and over plaintiff's land, washing away the soil of a large area of plaintiff's farm, which plaintiff alleges was fertile and productive until it was washed away, but that now it is permanently injured and damaged by reason of the said dam breaking and washing the same away.

Tillman Bradley & Morrow, of Birmingham, and Almon, Andrews & Peach of Sheffield, for appellant.

W.H Key, of Russellville, and Kirk, Carmichael & Rather, of Tuscumbia, for appellee.

SAYRE J.

Appellant's demurrer to the complaint on the ground substantially that plaintiffs' (appellees') injury was not laid to negligence in the construction or maintenance of the dam should have been sustained. Appellees have cited a number of cases in all which there was an original wrong in the structure or operation which caused injury, as, for example defendant dammed up water so causing it to overflow plaintiff's land, or defendant caused water to flow upon plaintiff's land which was accustomed to flow elsewhere, or there was an original encroachment of some character upon plaintiff's land, all which acts were wrongful of course, were nuisances for the consequences of which the defendants in those cases were liable without regard to whether or not there was negligence, for no degree of care would excuse a wrong of that character. But the owner of land may for his own lawful purposes dam up the water of a stream on his own land, and, doing so, he does no wrong. He is not an...